Is it possible to be a pacifist in Europe today?

Brussels / BarcelonaIt's easy to be a pacifist when there is peace. But when war is at your doorstep, the decision becomes personal: how do you uphold the banner of nonviolence when you have the responsibility of defending your own home? How can you continue to defend this ideal when Russian expansionism is on the border of Europe, the United States has abandoned the defense of the continent, and has abdicated its role as guarantor of international law?

Militaristic winds are blowing once again across Europe, shattering the idyllic peace that had prevailed since the fall of the Berlin Wall: peace is no longer a given. Compulsory military service has been reinstated in many countries across the continent, and states are pouring vast sums of money into the arms industry to "defend" themselves against potential aggression. Europe finds itself increasingly isolated in a world drifting toward authoritarianism, imperialism, and the threat of force.

It is in this context that the big question arises: despite the great success of demilitarization, is it possible to remain a pacifist in today's Europe?

“Trying to prepare for peace by preparing for war is a mistake. The only intelligent path is negotiation and agreements,” points out Martí Olivella, a promoter of the nonviolent resistance movement, who laments the resumption of this seemingly buried debate. The most pacifist voices have seen the return of military service and the increase in defense spending as a setback in the achievement of civil rights. Conflict and peace process analyst Vicenç Fisas defends pacifism “today in Europe, throughout the world, and always.” The expert believes it is necessary to reject the current European Union’s “narrative of fear,” which aims to justify injecting “more money into arms companies.” These companies, by the way, have seen their profits and stock prices skyrocket in 2025."Russia barely holds the area of ​​Ukraine it has. How do you expect it to attack European countries under these conditions?" he asks.

The opinion of these analysts is based on a single maxim: the more weapons there are, the greater the likelihood of more deaths. "If you prepare for war, you will ultimately find yourself embroiled in a war," emphasizes José Luis Gordillo, a researcher at the Delàs Center, who predicts that "a war between NATO and Russia [...] would be a war in which all Europeans would lose." All three agree that the resources allocated to ensuring the continent's security must come from somewhere, and they believe this could come at the expense of the welfare state. Therefore, they consider rearmament a "historical mistake" that threatens the European way of life. "Spending more than during the Cold War is an absolute aberration. It means destroying what little remains of the welfare state on the continent," says Fisas.

So, if rearmament isn't the most desirable option in the opinion of these experts, what should the solution be? All three argue that diplomatic efforts are a crucial first step. But what happens when one side refuses to negotiate and is instead faced with Putin? Olivella proposes a third way: nonviolent resistance. "We, the population, are prepared to confront conflict situations intelligently," says the expert, who maintains that facing an unarmed army can "have a greater impact." "When one side renounces weapons, its moral standing is enormous," he argues.

The answer depends on who you ask. What determines the willingness to rearm is not so much political affiliation—since, generally speaking, those from the center-left to the center-right are undeniably in favor—as geographical location. A Catalan does not have the same view of the threat Putin poses to European security as a Pole. That is why, while the Danish Prime Minister, the Social Democrat Mette Frederiksen, maintains a very harsh stance against Moscow, the Spanish Prime Minister, the Socialist Pedro Sánchez, criticizes the "bellicose" tone of some of his European counterparts.

Resigning oneself to the harsh reality: Putin's expansionism

Putin's threat is viewed differently as we approach Russia's borders. The expert from think tank European Bruegel Jacob Funk Kirkegaard doesn't believe you can be a pacifist if you live in Italy or Portugal, but "even less so if you live near Russia." The threat is more imminent and Russian hybrid attacks, constant, such as disinformation campaigns and sabotage"Pacifism as a moral and philosophical stance remains legitimate, but in real life, as seen in Europe, it currently represents a completely peripheral approach to maintaining strategic stability," adds researcher Tomás Nagy, from the GLOBSEC center, based in Bratislava, Slovakia.

For this reason, the director of think tank Karel Lannoo, a European expert at CEPS, emphasizes that Europe's deterrent capacity must be strengthened, especially after Trump's departure. In this regard, aside from increasing the military capabilities of European allies, the expert points out the need for political and coordinating bodies that provide Europe with a "real deterrent" capability. Until now, Kirkegaard maintains that the military umbrella offered by the United States in Europe has kept other powers at bay when it comes to attacking European territory, but Donald Trump's return has jeopardized the continent's protection and, therefore, has "negatively affected" this deterrent capacity. "If Europeans had a real deterrent capability, we wouldn't be constantly subjected to cyberattacks and hybrid attacks," he states.

Rearmament alone may not have the desired deterrent effect, Nagy acknowledges, and therefore needs to be accompanied by political and diplomatic efforts. For this reason, Lannoo insists that European allies must find alternatives to NATO to maintain a unified front, protect each other, and at the same time avoid becoming targets of third parties, especially Russia. "Whether it's a European Defence Union or a Defence Security Council, we need a credible deterrent," the CEPS expert points out.

All three admit that rearmament carries a risk and could lead to an escalation of war. "But we have no other option," Lannoo emphasizes. "The goal is always deterrence: defense, not attack," Kirkegaard points out. They hold the same view regarding a potential reduction in investments in social welfare, such as education or healthcare, to allocate those funds to armaments. "Countries have fiscal leeway, and besides, we have no choice but to rearm. If we don't protect ourselves, we could end up with nothing," Lannoo concludes.

Despite the differences,European leaders have completely changed their tune.Rearmament has gone from being a taboo subject to becoming the EU's top priority. Ursula von der Leyen's European Commission has launched an unprecedented €800 billion plan to remilitarize the continent and is allowing member states to take on exceptional debt to cover its costs. Most member states are deploying rearmament plans and boosting their arms industries. And there are growing calls for greater European military coordination and even for the creation of an organization parallel to NATO, which...de factoIt is controlled by the United States.

The shift in discourse among leaders has also been reflected in public opinion. Defense and security have become the top priority for Europeans, according to the Eurobarometer survey of autumn 2025, whereas in the same report from summer 2024 it ranked fourth. This is due to a change in perception: the majority of citizens believe their country is under threat. Consequently, they are largely in favor of allocating resources to security and defense. One in three Europeans believes this budget item should be increased. This proportion remains high even in countries with a more pacifist tradition or less close ties to Russia, such as Spain, Italy, and Slovenia.

The problem of coordination

One point of agreement between pacifist voices and those most in favor of a major rearmament is the need to make existing military capabilities more efficient. The lack of coordination in defense policy among European allies leads to duplication of arsenals and resources, which reduces the effectiveness of militaries and increases their cost. A 2024 study by the European Parliament indicates that the cost of this lack of defense coordination is between €18 billion and €57 billion annually.

The paradigmatic example of fragmentation is military equipment. While the US operates with only one tank model (Abrahams), Europe has more than ten different types. The same is true for fighter jets: the EU manufactures three models (Eurofighter, Rafale, and Gripen), while the Pentagon has only one, the F-35. This gives the EU massive production capacity. However, the diversity of models in Europe is not only more expensive but also hinders interoperability on the battlefield.

The call for a unified defense and security policy enjoys broad consensus in a European Union marked by political fragmentation. This demand has taken root among citizens to the point that today, 81% of Europeans support a common policy in this area, the highest figure since 2004.